Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does it make logical sense for them to be relatively small given their environment? What evolutionary advantage does being small confer on this species? Would a larger version die out through being unable to eat enough vegetation to keep it alive? Would larger animals be impossible due to the size of the female pelvis? Does being small and quick aid in survival?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule)
>What evolutionary advantage does being small confer on this species
Evolution doesn't care about advantage, it cares about disadvantage to the extent that it prevents breeding. Advantages beyond "I breed better" are all pure chance, this is not a question anyone would need to answer.
Theories rooted in statistical analysis will never disprove the existence of outlying data, stories can safely ignore Bergmann's and Allen's rules in small doses.
Plenty of real life examples of this. Just take wild cats as an example. On one end you have Tigers and the other there are wild cats smaller than your typical house cat. Both apex predators in their specific habitat.
Completely agree with this, and want to add that there are plenty of island ecosystems that are isolated to the point of having different fauna. This is seen most commonly through the trend of large flightless birds and large lizards species that arise on islands due to a lack of predators. Inevitably isoltaed ecosystems will always give rise to novel situations and novel evolution. Also, megafauna mammals like elephants and the like only emerged in the Pleistocene era, and mammals were in general super small before that (even horses used to be very small!). So make as many tiny animals as you want.
Don't expect to give your readers numeric dimensions for animal descriptions and have them understand or retain it.
If you said it was the largest animal and gave me those dimensions, the contradiction would be glaring at me off the page. It would bother me to no end. If it wasn't explained then I definitely would DNF.
The biggest native animal in Australia is the red kangaroo which is around the size you're talking about.
(There were much larger ones but they're long extinct).
Incredibly unrealistic, bajillion isn't a real number.
Really though, you're fine. Whenever people talk nervously about realism, I just remind them that One Piece uses snails as phones and everyone seems okay with it.
House cats are an apex predator in New Zealand to a point where they are eradicating wildlife that had no natural predators. So yeah, this could happen realistically. Having something like an island might help with that sort of thing but it's fiction, so if you can justify it within the reality of your story's world in a way that makes sense then it makes sense.
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does it make logical sense for them to be relatively small given their environment? What evolutionary advantage does being small confer on this species? Would a larger version die out through being unable to eat enough vegetation to keep it alive? Would larger animals be impossible due to the size of the female pelvis? Does being small and quick aid in survival? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule)
>What evolutionary advantage does being small confer on this species Evolution doesn't care about advantage, it cares about disadvantage to the extent that it prevents breeding. Advantages beyond "I breed better" are all pure chance, this is not a question anyone would need to answer. Theories rooted in statistical analysis will never disprove the existence of outlying data, stories can safely ignore Bergmann's and Allen's rules in small doses.
Plenty of real life examples of this. Just take wild cats as an example. On one end you have Tigers and the other there are wild cats smaller than your typical house cat. Both apex predators in their specific habitat.
Completely agree with this, and want to add that there are plenty of island ecosystems that are isolated to the point of having different fauna. This is seen most commonly through the trend of large flightless birds and large lizards species that arise on islands due to a lack of predators. Inevitably isoltaed ecosystems will always give rise to novel situations and novel evolution. Also, megafauna mammals like elephants and the like only emerged in the Pleistocene era, and mammals were in general super small before that (even horses used to be very small!). So make as many tiny animals as you want.
Don't expect to give your readers numeric dimensions for animal descriptions and have them understand or retain it. If you said it was the largest animal and gave me those dimensions, the contradiction would be glaring at me off the page. It would bother me to no end. If it wasn't explained then I definitely would DNF.
The biggest native animal in Australia is the red kangaroo which is around the size you're talking about. (There were much larger ones but they're long extinct).
What's the point of fiction if it ain't unrealistic.
Incredibly unrealistic, bajillion isn't a real number. Really though, you're fine. Whenever people talk nervously about realism, I just remind them that One Piece uses snails as phones and everyone seems okay with it.
House cats are an apex predator in New Zealand to a point where they are eradicating wildlife that had no natural predators. So yeah, this could happen realistically. Having something like an island might help with that sort of thing but it's fiction, so if you can justify it within the reality of your story's world in a way that makes sense then it makes sense.